Another Look of the Missile Squadrons
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Page Key to Index
PAGE KEY TO INDEX AIRCRAFT — B-17 "Flying Fortresses" 1 AIRCRAFT — Other 2 AWARDS — Military 2 AWARDS —Other 3 CITIES 3 ESCAPES and EVASIONS 10 GENERAL 10 INTERNEES 19 KILLED IN ACTION 19 MEMORIALS and CEMETERIES 20 MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS — 303rd BG 20 MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS — Other 21 MISSIONS — Target and Date 25 PERSONS 26 PRISONERS OF WAR 51 REUNIONS 51 WRITERS 52 1 El Screamo (Feb. 2004, pg. 18) Miss Lace (Feb. 2004, pg. 18), (May 2004, Fast Worker II (May 2005, pg. 12) pg. 15) + (May 2005, pg. 12), (Nov. 2005, I N D E X FDR (May 2004, pg. 17) pg. 8) + (Nov. 2006, pg. 13) + (May 2007, FDR's Potato Peeler Kids (Feb. 2002, pg. pg. 16-photo) 15) + (May 2004, pg. 17) Miss Liberty (Aug. 2006, pg. 17) Flak Wolf (Aug. 2005, pg. 5), (Nov. 2005, Miss Umbriago (Aug 2003, pg. 15) AIRCRAFT pg. 18) Mugger, The (Feb. 2004, pg. 18) Flak Wolf II (May 2004, pg. 7) My Darling (Feb. 2004, pg. 18) B-17 "Flying Fortress" Floose (May 2004, pg. 4, 6-photo) Myasis Dragon (Feb. 2004, pg. 18) Flying Bison (Nov. 2006, pg. 19-photo) Nero (Feb. 2004, pg. 18) Flying Bitch (Aug. 2002, pg. 17) + (Feb. Neva, The Silver Lady (May 2005, pg. 15), “451" (Feb. 2002, pg. 17) 2004, pg. 18) (Aug. 2005, pg. 19) “546" (Feb. 2002, pg. 17) Fox for the F (Nov. 2004, pg. 7) Nine-O-Nine (May 2005, pg. 20) + (May 41-24577 (May 2002, pg. 12) Full House (Feb. 2004, pg. 18) 2007, pg. 20-photo) 41-24603 (Aug. -
The Force Improvement Program Promises Grassroots Fixes For
Nuclear Force Improvements The Force Improvement Program promises grassroots fi xes for USAF’s nuclear forces. By Amy McCullough, News Editor issileers are cautiously op- The teams visited all three missile voice to airmen who likely didn’t have timistic the latest plan to wings at Malmstrom, F. E. Warren AFB, one before. It’s meant to turn the ICBM reinvigorate the nuclear force Wyo., and Minot AFB, N.D., where culture of severe micromanagement will have lasting effects—but they conducted hundreds of interviews and fear into one of empowerment for after being dubbed the “prob- to determine what challenges exist for all airmen. Mlem child of the Air Force” by numerous airmen in their respective mission areas. “This is a program owned by air- reviews and panels over the years, many The group came up with more than 300 men,” said Wilson. “We have really say they are waiting to see what the future recommendations, which were pitched good people. If we give them the right will really hold. to senior Air Force leaders. Of those, 98 education, training, and experience, if The Air Force launched the Force percent were approved. The recommen- we make sure they are confi dent and Improvement Program in February dations fall into three main categories: proud, [and] if we make sure they are 2014 after an internal investigation inspections, leadership development, personally and professionally fulfi lled, uncovered widespread cheating on a and the personnel reliability program. we [get] mission success.” nuclear proficiency exam at Malm- The changes have been steadily rolling strom AFB, Mont. -
26Th AIR DIVISION
26th AIR DIVISION MISSION LINEAGE 26th Air Defense Division established, 21 Oct 1948 Activated, 16 Nov 1948 Redesignated 26th Air Division (Defense), 20 Jun 1949 Inactivated, 1 Feb 1952 Organized, 1 Feb 1952 Redesignated 26th Air Division (SAGE), 8 Aug 1958 Redesignated 26th Air Division, 1 Apr 1966 Inactivated, 30 Sep 1969 Activated, 19 Nov 1969 Inactivated, 30 Sep 1990 STATIONS Mitchel AFB, NY, 16 Nov 1948 Mitchel AFB Sub Base #3, Roslyn, NY, 18 Apr 1949-1 Feb 1952 Mitchel AFB Sub Base #3, Roslyn (later, Roslyn AFS), NY, 1 Feb 1952 Syracuse AFS, NY, 15 Aug 1958 Hancock Field, NY, 14 Feb 1959 Stewart AFB, NY, 15 Jun 1964 Adair AFS, OR, 1 Apr 1966-30 Sep 1969 Luke AFB, AZ, 19 Nov 1969 March AFB, CA, 31 Aug 1983-1 Jul 1987 ASSIGNMENTS First Air Force, 16 Nov 1948 Air Defense Command, 1 Apr 1949 First Air Force, 16 Nov 1949 Eastern Air Defense Force, 1 Sep 1950-1 Feb 1952 Eastern Air Defense Force, 1 Feb 1952 Air Defense Command, 1 Aug 1959 Fourth Air Force, 1 Apr 1966-30 Sep 1969 Tenth Air Force, 19 Nov 1969 Aerospace Defense Command, 1 Dec 1969 Tactical Air Command, 1 Oct 1979 First Air Force, 6 Dec 1985-30 Sep 1990 ATTACHMENTS Eastern Air Defense Force, 17 Nov 1949-31 Aug 1950 COMMANDERS Unkn (manned at paper unit strength), 16 Nov 1948-31 Mar 1949 Col Ernest H. Beverly, 1 Apr 1949 BG Russell J. Minty, Nov 1949 Col Hanlon H. Van Auken, 1953 BG James W. McCauley, 1 Apr 1953 BG Thayer S. -
The Northern Sentry Is Pub- Lished by BHG, Inc., a Private fi Rm Operating Independently of the U.S
NORTHERN SENTRY FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 1 FREE | VOL. 55 • ISSUE 36 | WWW.NORTHERNSENTRY.COM | MINOT AIR FORCE BASE | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 U.S. AIR FORCE PHOTO | AIRMAN 1ST CLASS ALYSSA M. AKERS 2 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 NORTHERN SENTRY AIRMAN 1ST CLASS ALYSSA M. AKERS | MINOT AIR FORCE BASE PUBLIC AFFAIRS MINOT AIR FORCE causing it to capsize. 429 Lawrence was one of laid to rest at Immanuel Airmen, families and BASE, N.D. -- sailors and marines were the missing who were Lutheran Church in Willow military veterans. More “Yesterday, December trapped, giving the ultimate identifi ed. Creek. than 200 people lined the 7th, 1941, a date which will sacrifi ce, their life. He was fi nally returned Lawrence was welcomed live in infamy, the United “I thought it was home to North Dakota, on by Willow City natives, States of America was impossible he was dead,” Aug. 13, 2017. He was Minot Air Force Base Continued on page 3 suddenly and deliberately said Anderson. “We all attacked by naval and air thought maybe he went to forces of the Empire of town and stayed overnight. Japan.” We just received Christmas With those words, cards from him. [But] a few President Franklin days after, we were told he Roosevelt ensured America was killed.” would never forget Pearl In 1943, the Oklahoma Harbor. was removed from the Betty Anderson was only ocean and the bodies were 15 years old, but this would recovered. Due to the lack be a day she and her family of technology at the time, would never forget. -
F.E. WARREN 90Th MW Welcomes Col. Peter Bonetti As New Wing
F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE JULY 2019 90th MW welcomes Col. Peter Bonetti as new wing commander Major Gen. Fred Stoss, 20th Air Force commander, passes the guidon to Col. Peter Bonetti, 90th Missile Wing commander, during a change of command on Argonne Parade Field at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., May 31, 2019. Bonetti is coming from the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., as the vice commander. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ashley N. Sokolov) The Mighty Ninety gathered to conduct a change of command ceremony May 31, 2019 on the Argonne Parade Field, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., to welcome the 90th Missile Wing’s new commander, Col. Peter Bonetti. “I never thought I would make it, but my aspiration was to always do the best I could,” Bonetti said. The new wing commander commissioned in 1995 and served in a variety of positions within missile and space launch operations, including senior evaluator and flight commander. “The Air Force wants leaders who do the best they can, they want caring and open people to take action and take care of families.” Bonetti said. Most recently, the vice commander at the 341st Missile Wing, Malmstrom, Air Force Base, Mont. His time there lead him to be the 90th MW commander. Bonetti conveyed his desire to lead Airmen to their highest potential. “We are all challenged in life with different things that happen to us. We all have different goals, different dreams,” Bonetti said. “I Airmen of the 90th Missile Wing stand at attention during the 90th Missile Wing’s change of want them to achieve those goals and dreams. -
United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................ -
Premises, Sites Etc Within 30 Miles of Harrington Museum Used for Military Purposes in the 20Th Century
Premises, Sites etc within 30 miles of Harrington Museum used for Military Purposes in the 20th Century The following listing attempts to identify those premises and sites that were used for military purposes during the 20th Century. The listing is very much a works in progress document so if you are aware of any other sites or premises within 30 miles of Harrington, Northamptonshire, then we would very much appreciate receiving details of them. Similarly if you spot any errors, or have further information on those premises/sites that are listed then we would be pleased to hear from you. Please use the reporting sheets at the end of this document and send or email to the Carpetbagger Aviation Museum, Sunnyvale Farm, Harrington, Northampton, NN6 9PF, [email protected] We hope that you find this document of interest. Village/ Town Name of Location / Address Distance to Period used Use Premises Museum Abthorpe SP 646 464 34.8 km World War 2 ANTI AIRCRAFT SEARCHLIGHT BATTERY Northamptonshire The site of a World War II searchlight battery. The site is known to have had a generator and Nissen huts. It was probably constructed between 1939 and 1945 but the site had been destroyed by the time of the Defence of Britain survey. Ailsworth Manor House Cambridgeshire World War 2 HOME GUARD STORE A Company of the 2nd (Peterborough) Battalion Northamptonshire Home Guard used two rooms and a cellar for a company store at the Manor House at Ailsworth Alconbury RAF Alconbury TL 211 767 44.3 km 1938 - 1995 AIRFIELD Huntingdonshire It was previously named 'RAF Abbots Ripton' from 1938 to 9 September 1942 while under RAF Bomber Command control. -
Operation Dominic I
OPERATION DOMINIC I United States Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests Nuclear Test Personnel Review Prepared by the Defense Nuclear Agency as Executive Agency for the Department of Defense HRE- 0 4 3 6 . .% I.., -., 5. ooument. Tbe t k oorreotsd oontraofor that tad oa the book aw ra-ready c I I i I 1 1 I 1 I 1 i I I i I I I i i t I REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NC I NA6OccOF 1 i Technical Report 7. AUTHOR(.) i L. Berkhouse, S.E. Davis, F.R. Gladeck, J.H. Hallowell, C.B. Jones, E.J. Martin, DNAOO1-79-C-0472 R.A. Miller, F.W. McMullan, M.J. Osborne I I 9. PERFORMING ORGAMIIATION NWE AN0 AODRCSS ID. PROGRAM ELEMENT PROJECT. TASU Kamn Tempo AREA & WOW UNIT'NUMSERS P.O. Drawer (816 State St.) QQ . Subtask U99QAXMK506-09 ; Santa Barbara, CA 93102 11. CONTROLLING OFClCC MAME AM0 ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE 1 nirpctor- . - - - Defense Nuclear Agency Washington, DC 20305 71, MONITORING AGENCY NAME AODRCSs(rfdIfI*mI ka CamlIlIU Olllc.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (-1 ah -*) J Unclassified SCHCDULC 1 i 1 I 1 IO. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES This work was sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agency under RDT&E RMSS 1 Code 6350079464 U99QAXMK506-09 H2590D. For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 19. KEY WOROS (Cmlmm a nm.. mid. I1 n.c...-7 .nd Id.nllh 4 bled nlrmk) I Nuclear Testing Polaris KINGFISH Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) FISHBOWL TIGHTROPE DOMINIC Phase I Christmas Island CHECKMATE 1 Johnston Island STARFISH SWORDFISH ASROC BLUEGILL (Continued) D. -
ADC and Antibomber Defense, 1946-1972
Obtained and posted by AltGov2: www.altgov2.org ADC HISTORICAL STUDY NO. 39 THE AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND AND ANTIBOMBER DEFENSE 194& -1972 ADCHO 73-8-17 FOREWORD" The resources made available to the Aerospace Defense Command (and the predecessor Air Defense Command) for defense against the manned bomber have ebbed and flowed with changes in national military policy. It is often difficult to outline the shape of national policy, however, in a dynamic society like that of the United States. Who makes national policy? Nobody, really. The armed forces make recommenda tions, but these are rarely accepted, in total, by the political administration that makes the final pbrposals to Congress. The changes introduced at the top executive level are variously motivated. The world political climate must be considered, as must various political realities within the country. Cost is always a factor and a determination must be made as to the allocation of funds for defense as opposed to allocations to other government concerns. The personalities, prejudices and predilections of the men who occupy high political office invariably affect proposals to Congress. The disposition of these proposals, of course, is in the hands of Congress. While the executive branch of the government is pushect' and pulled in various directions, Congress is probably subject to heavier pressures. Here, again, the nature of the men who occupy responsible positions within the Congress often affect the decisions of Congress. ·National policy, then, is the product of many minds and is shaped by many diverse interests. The present work is a recapitulation and summarization of three earlier monographs on this subject covering the periods 1946-1950 (ADC Historical Study No. -
Summer 2004 Volume XVIII, No
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen John P. Jumper Commander, Air Education and Training Command Gen Donald G. Cook http://www.af.mil Commander, Air University Lt Gen Donald A. Lamontagne Commander, College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education Col Barrett S. Elliott Editor Lt Col Paul D. Berg http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil Senior Editor Lt Col Malcolm D. Grimes Associate Editors Lt Col Michael J. Masterson Maj Donald R. Ferguson Editor and Military Defense Analyst Col Larry Carter, USAF, Retired Professional Staff http://www.au.af.mil Marvin W. Bassett, Contributing Editor Mary J. Moore, Editorial Assistant Steven C. Garst, Director of Art and Production Daniel M. Armstrong, Illustrator L. Susan Fair, Illustrator Ann Bailey, Prepress Production Manager Air and Space Power Chronicles Luetwinder T. Eaves, Managing Editor http://www.cadre.maxwell.af.mil The Air and Space Power Journal, published quarterly, is the professional flagship publication of the United States Air Force. It is designed to serve as an open forum for the presentation and stimulation of innova tive thinking on military doctrine, strategy, tactics, force structure, readiness, and other matters of na tional defense. The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanc tion of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. Articles in this edition may be reproduced in whole or Visit Air and Space Power Journal online in part without permission. If they are reproduced, at http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil the Air and Space Power Journal requests a courtesy line. -
Afsc 21Mx Munitions and Missile Maintenance Officer Career Field
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE CFETP 21MX Headquarters, United States Air Force Parts I and II Washington, DC 20330-1030 12 November 2014 AFSC 21MX MUNITIONS AND MISSILE MAINTENANCE OFFICER CAREER FIELD EDUCATION AND TRAINING PLAN ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-publishing website at http://www.e- publishing.af.mil/ for downloading or ordering. RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication. The Missile Badge Heraldry The first distinctive missile badge was established May 23, 1958, to recognize those within the Air Force who had a direct role in the development, maintenance or operation of guided missiles. The badge was first called the Guided Missile Insignia and was authorized for those who performed duty in or were associated with the Snark, Atlas, Goose, Thor, Jupiter, Matador, Mace, Bomarc, Titan and Minuteman missile systems. In 1963, the name was changed to the Missileman Badge and three levels of expertise were established: Basic, Senior, and Master Missileman. The honor of wearing the badge went to those who completed specialized missile training. In April 1979, the name of the Missileman Badge was once again changed, this time to simply Missile Badge, deleting any reference to gender. In addition to the original missile systems, the Missile Badge is now awarded to personnel in the Peacekeeper, Air Launched Cruise Missile, Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile and Advanced Cruise Missile weapon systems. In 1988, with the approval of the “Missile Operations Designator,” a wreath encircling the Missile Badge, the original Missile Badge became a badge awarded exclusively to missile maintainers. In 2004, the Missile Badge was approved for wear by officers who had graduated the Conventional Munitions Officer Course and supervised 2M/W personnel in the maintenance, loading and unloading of guided missiles or missile systems for 12 months. -
The Rise and Fall of Missiles in the Us Air Force, 1957-1967
FLAMEOUT: THE RISE AND FALL OF MISSILES IN THE U.S. AIR FORCE, 1957-1967 A Dissertation by DAVID WILLIAM BATH Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Joseph G. Dawson, III Committee Members, Terry H. Anderson Olga Dror Angela Pulley Hudson James Burk Head of Department, David Vaught December 2015 Major Subject: History Copyright 2015 David William Bath ABSTRACT This dissertation documents how the U.S. national perspective toward ballistic nuclear missiles changed dramatically between 1957 and 1967 and how the actions and attitudes of this time brought about long term difficulties for the nation, the Air Force, and the missile community. In 1957, national leaders believed that ballistic missiles would replace the manned bomber and be used to win an anticipated third world war between communist and capitalist nations. Only ten years later, the United States was deep into a limited war in Vietnam and had all but proscribed the use of nuclear missiles. This dissertation uses oral histories, memoirs, service school theses, and formerly classified government documents and histories to determine how and why the nation changed its outlook on nuclear ballistic missiles so quickly. The dissertation contends that because scientists and engineers created the revolutionary weapon at the beginning of the Cold War, when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were struggling for influence and power, many national leaders urged the military to design and build nuclear ballistic missiles before the Soviet Union could do so.